Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 - 6:03 p.m.

Westerly Town Hall | Town Council Chambers

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Hopkins called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, Secretary Andrew Delisio, and Members Tabitha Harkin, James Hall IV, Matthew O’Neil, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:             None

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

Town Council Liaison Kevin Lowther was absent.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. January 10, 2023 and January 24, 2023 - Mr. Delisio made a motion to approve as submitted both the January 10, 2023 and January 24, 2023 Planning Board meeting minutes. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with an abstention from Ms. Harkin who was absent from both meetings.

D. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

There were no changes to the agenda.

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-ATC-05: 16 Post Road Ministorage – Major Land Development - Master Plan Review, Recommendation to Zoning Board on Special Use Permit & Recommendation to Town Council on Zoning Map & Text Amendments (16 Post Road | Assessor’s Map 99, Lot 3A) Continuation of a public hearing begun January 24th. Review, discussion and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on a proposed master plan for a ministorage facility at 16 Post Road, along with possible recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding a special use permit and possible recommendation to the Town Council on a zone change from the existing split lot zoning of Highway Commercial (HC) and Rural Residential (RR-60) to one zone, General Commercial (GC) and zoning text amendment regarding parking. EDC opinion dated February 13, 2023 linked here and available for review at the Planning Office in Town Hall.

 

Ms. Letendre reminded the Board that this application is a continuation of a public hearing that began in January. The applicant has been to the Economic Development Commission (EDC), who provided the Planning Board with an advisory opinion that highlights information in support of their positive recommendation.

            Attorney Thomas Liguori, with offices at 85 Beach Street, Westerly, was present on behalf of the application. He referenced a previously distributed revision to the rezone request, which would rezone part of the highway commercial zone to general commercial, but as part of the staff notes, they left the existing low density residential zone (LDR-60) portion of the property unchanged. Atty. Liguori suggested that the Board could recommend to the Town Council that the rezone be allowed with the condition that on each of the two parcels, with respect to the parcel that is zoned LDR-60, that it have an environmental use restriction not allowing development or structures and that it be left in its natural state with the exception of an existing Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) approved retention basin. He said that staff also observed that that the required setbacks would be decreased by changing the designation from highway commercial so they suggested that keeping the same setbacks if the property is rezoned could be another condition of the text amendment. Atty. Liguori pointed out that under State law restrictions may only be valid for 30 years but there is an exception to that specifically for conservation conditions. He noted that his comments address prior staff concerns outlined in the initial recommendation to the Planning Board.

            Atty. Liguori described the location of the project on the site plans. Project engineer Sergio Cherenzia, principal and president of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck explained the parking requirements. There will be an impervious surface reduction about 18,000 square feet. Atty. Liguori explained why the applicant chose to apply for a zone change rather than proposing ministorage as a permissible use in the highway commercial zone, citing precedent from 2014 at  234-238 Post Road.

            Atty. Liguori described how the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  He referenced submitted documents noting other existing storage facilities in the area that attempt to justify how zoning can be used to prohibit more storage facilities. He said it is improper to use zoning to limit competition. Atty. Liguori noted the importance of redevelopment and revitalization in the Comprehensive Plan. He said there is also language in the Westerly plan directing business locations. He described why this business was a good idea in that location and how it improves the area and is justified by the plan.

Atty. Liguori said the architectural plans are available and  that if the application was recommended to the Town Council, the applicant would continue to work with the Board on the architectural details in the preliminary and final plan phases. He said there are multiple façade options. He explained some of them and photos were displayed as examples.

            The Board questioned the applicant at about 6:43 p.m. It was discussed that the last inhabitant of the site address in question was a Staples business that moved out about 14 yeas ago. Atty. Liguori said the objective is to make the site productive again with redevelopment. Mr. Hall noted that the opposition to the project did not propose a better idea for the site nor have they invested in it. The Board took public comment at 6:47 p.m.

            Attorney Christopher D’Ovidio, with offices at 225 Dyer Street, Providence, spoke as legal counsel for Trestle Park LLC, owned by Bob Celico, who was also present with his wife, Erin. Atty. D’Ovidio asked professional architect Megan Moynihan to present information from a report she created on how the proposed zone text amendment is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He said they were present to explain why this spot zoning is inconsistent with the Westerly Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Moynihan was introduced and explained her professional and educational background as an architect. She is the principal of the architectural firm Oyster Works, LLC. She said she has read and understood the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is prepared to testify about the project. She noted the plan does recognize Route 1. She said the parcel referenced by Atty. Liguori in 2014 that applied for a zone change to expand a nonconforming ministorage facility is the only time Westerly made an amendment to the zoning map from highway commercial to general commercial. She further described that case, which she said would not have met the size requirements for highway commercial. Ms. Moynihan disagreed that the project was aesthetically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and said the location of this specific business could be to the detriment of Westerly’s local economy. She displayed various images of other mini-storage facilities expressing concern of what the project may look like. She said she does not think it will improve the visual character of Westerly, even though it will reduce parking needs. She suggested that impervious paving surfaces can be addressed in other ways.

Ms. Moynihan noted that Westerly does not have a legal requirement to grant the request. She suggested the Town ponder that many communities are considering moratoriums on the building of self-storage units until they can rethink applicable zoning and development regulation appropriate for the use. She said oversaturation of the market should be considered. Ms. Moynihan referenced that the Town of Charlestown has a moratorium on it until the end of April 2023. Ms. Moynihan’s report dated January 23, 2023 was submitted as part of the record and marked as Remonstrance 1. A four-page document, an addendum to Ms. Moynihan’s report dated February 21, 2023, was marked as the next Remonstrance 2.

            Atty. Liguori noted that Ms. Moynihan is not a Town Planner or lawyer but seeks to critique the Westerly Town Planner’s recommendations. He replied to the comments that the project would have high visibility. He said a landscape plan has been submitted that will screen the building. Atty. Liguori said the proposal is clearly in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

            Mr. Delisio commented that this is not a highly visible property and it is already existing and vacant. There has been no other interest in the parcel and he believes it is a good use. Mr. O’Neil noted that when you actually calculate the buildable area of the site it is small relative to the overall acreage of the property. Ms. Harkin said proposed redevelopment for this site makes sense and she hopes the applicant will follow through on aesthetics and proper stormwater management. Mr. Constantine said the Comprehensive Plan is designed to be somewhat flexible and it is not the Town’s job to determine what may be economically feasible. Ms. Lentz Madison and Mr. Hall said they have no issue with the proposed plan. Mr. Hopkins reminded everyone that the Planning Board did hear this application at the September 20, 2022 meeting and he does not see any important differences in the presentation to note.

 

Mr. Constantine suggested corrections to condition two and condition 4 section h. Condition 5, the maintenance of highway commercial setbacks, was added to the list. 

Mr. Delisio made a motion to approve with conditions as listed and discussed Application ‘2022-ATC-05 – Major Land Development Master Plan – 16 Post Road Ministorage (16 Post Road | Assessor’s Map 99, Lot 3A). Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board renders a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board on the merits of the proposed development and focused effort on reuse of a long-vacant commercial property. The Planning Board advises that the requested Special Use Permit will not adversely affect the general commercial character of the area. With further consideration and discussion of aesthetics, storm water management, sediment/erosion controls, environmental protection, utilities, special features, and lighting, the Planning Board will be prepared to entertain preliminary plan approval. The relief requested is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it seeks to promote the economic reuse of an existing commercial property that has long been unused. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board hereby renews its recommendation transmitted to the Town Council on September 20, 2022, in favor of granting the requested Zoning map amendment for 16 Post Road, changing its zoning designation for the front half of the site from Highway Commercial (HC) to General Commercial (GC) and the text amendment to Section 260-77A ‘Off-street parking’ establishing a parking requirement for a ministorage facility. The Planning Board recognizes both the precedent for the zone change that occurred in 2014 at 234-238 Post Road and the vision and values of the Route One Corridor Plan as support for the zone change and proposed use. The Planning Board has determined that rezoning the rear portion of the site, which is currently zoned Rural Residential-60 would be inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan and is NOT recommended. The Planning Board incorporates by reference, the Findings of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Purposes of Zoning as stated in their September 20, 2022 advisory opinion. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

The Planning Board called a recess. Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 8:04 p.m.

 

2. 2021-LMIH-01: Multi-Family Development for Former St. Pius X Property – Comprehensive Permit - Master Plan (32 Elm Street | Assessor’s Map 6, Lot 91) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Approval of a Major Land Development for proposed multifamily development at former St. Pius X property. Revised Site Layout Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Plans, dated 1/5/2023, 2/7/2023, and 2/6/2023, respectively, linked here and available for review at the Planning Office in Town Hall.

 

Ms. Letendre said the application will require a continuance to March 21 and asked the applicant to submit to a one-month extension of the decision which he did.

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, Westerly was present to represent Trendsetter Properties, LLC, along with project engineer Sergio Cherenzia, project architect Peter Springsteel, landscape architect Rebecca Nolan, and Jeffrey Pucci, a representative of Trendsetter Properties, LLC. Atty. Nardone said they reduced the size of the second proposed building and agreed to construct some of the new units on the existing St. Pius School Building in the area referred to as the new addition. He said the applicant attempted to balance the need for low and moderate income (LMI) housing, economic development, and the concerns of the Board and neighbors. Mr. Cherenzia described the changes to the site, which include a lot on School Street being merged with the site to increase the parking and green space. The new plan results in a greater number of units than originally proposed. There will be 48 units; 25 units will be in the new structure and the project eliminated any need for a height variance. The applicant is reincorporating a single-family residential lot on School Street to use for additional parking and green space. This was previously subdivided from the property. That will be buffered from the second subdivided lot on School Street. Mr. Cherenzia said they have contacted Fire Chief John Mackey to ensure that emergency services can navigate the property. There was some concern from the Town Engineer about the underground culvert crossing. Mr. Cherenzia said they excavated multiple test pits and found a four by five foot culvert built from cobbles with a granite slab underneath it. As they were excavating it, he said, they could peer in and see water running through it. The Town Engineer witnessed its location and now that they know where it is they have confidence in how to reroute whatever water that culvert carries, Mr. Cherenzia said.

Ms. Nolan, landscape architect at 44 Water Street, Mystic, reviewed the changes to the landscape plan. She said over 12,000 square feet of green space was added with the incorporation of the School Street lot. She said green space is calculated by canopy space as well as the amount of vegetation on the ground. Ms. Nolan said the project enhances the streetscape character on School Street, which now does not contain any street trees. They plan to install 10 tree species selected from Westerly’s Town Code list of trees. She added specimen trees to the plan to add to the character. She said that the south side of School Street is bordered by stone wall so the proposal is on the north side will connect with the Town and create a nice experience.

Mr. Delisio noted that the added lot is mostly parking with a bit of green space. Ms. Nolan said they are proposing putting another bay of parking in the existing lot. She said there is more engineering to be done and impervious surface area will be taken into consideration. Atty. Nardone said they provide for more parking than is required and they would be happy to remove some spaces, but they created 11 extra guest parking spots to assuage Board concerns. The parking requirement is 75 and they have 86 spaces planned. Ms. Nolan said a proposed picnic table area outside the existing building would ideally remain hardscape. Mr. Cherenzia said it could be made pervious paving, as well.

At 8:31 p.m., architect Peter Springsteel was introduced to review the modified architectural plans. Mr. Springsteel said they eliminated about 26 feet from the depth of the proposed new building, removing 7 units. He said it is now symmetrical to the neighboring building and adds space to the front and rear. Mr. Springsteel said the main change is the new addition in the rear of the existing building, that sits lower than the other two buildings. The new plan creates a village campus feel, he said. He displayed a three dimensional view of the buildings.

Mr. Hopkins asked what the floor to floor height was on the addition. Mr. Springsteel said it was 9.5 to 10 feet and noted that the existing building has a tall first floor so that pushes them up a little higher. Ms. Harkin asked about storage and amenity spaces in the buildings. In the new building there will be some space dedicated on the first floor, he said. He said the existing school building has a full basement that is not yet designated for any specific use. Mr. Springsteel explained only four units in the new building are affected by not having an elevator. Mr. Constantine said the new plan is a step in the right direction, but the design still does not blend with the character of the neighborhood. He expressed concern with the boxy design and fake façade rooflines. He referenced a document  he created with four photos as an example of more compatible designs, labeled Board’s Exhibit 2. He suggested that the designs be reevaluated before going back to the Architectural Review Board (ARB.) Mr. Hall agreed with Mr. Constantine. He suggested specifically that the School Street side of the building be improved.

The Board began receiving public comment at 8:46 p.m.

Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood group Elm Street Cares. He showed an enlargement of an exhibit previously submitted by the neighborhood group. He summarized the group’s concerns with the project; massing, aesthetics, and green space. He noted that the impervious surface mostly stays the same with the new plan. The density is nearly identical, as well since they added more units along with the addition of a larger lot. Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes that 20 percent density bonus is sufficient but the applicant is asking for three times that. Mr. Marolda said the new plan also adds more two-bedroom units so that could increase the number of people, or a 15 percent increase in bedrooms from the previous plan. This brings concerns about increased cars and traffic. He said he feels that the plan has not changed a lot since its introduction. Mr. Marolda referenced the Comprehensive Plan, added as chapter 10 in the Town Ordinances and that it should carry a lot of weight. He read language from the introduction of the plan, which is only two years old. The primary objective is to achieve an appropriate balance between conservation and development and to establish a resilient community in all functions and to enhance the quality of life for all residents. Mr. Marolda questioned why the plan is not being followed. There does not seem to be recognition that there are other nearby projects that could be researched as comparable to this application. He argued that the plan updates were not revised but were only a minor tweak of the same thing that has been presented for over a year.

Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, said the Board has already heard that the plan has not changed too much as far as scale so the economics of the plan are likely not changed. He said they have not yet seen what the applicant’s fallback position is and their backup plan may be far more aligned with the citizens’ and Board’s sense of scale and balance.

Vivian Barnett, of 25 Elm Street, said she was an art historian who has studied architectural history, and she emphasized the fact that the site is part of the Wilcox Historic District and part of the national registry of historic places. She said the Town has a responsibility to preserve the legacy of this district. She said the school building was built as the first Westerly High School in 1870 and at the turn of the last century it was the Elm Street Elementary School, providing more details on the history of the property. She questioned what materials will be used in the addition and their compatibility with the historic building. She commented on the existing materials. She said it is essential that the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC) have time to study the plans and for the ARB to examine the final drawings. She commented that renovations to area homes still consider historic architectural elements. She provided examples. She urged that the applicant needs to find a way to design the project to adapt to the neighborhood.

Jean Renz, of 58 Elm Street, said Mr. Hall asked to see the architectural plans and engineering feasibility study of an addition on the existing building in the past and the applicant had responded that it could not be done, however, now one has been presented in the 13^th hour. He questioned what kind of a bait and switch the applicant’s presentation was.

Atty. Nardone said there is significant engineering work to do. He understands the neighbors’ concerns that the plans are similar. He said they are proceeding in the comprehensive permit process which allows them to do the things they are requesting. In order to get closer to a finish line, they request the public hearing be closed and that the Planning Board render a decision at the next meeting favorable to the applicant granting Master Plan approval with conditions. Atty. Nardone noted the listed conditions written by the Town Planner. He said that will give the applicant the direction to proceed with the process. One of the main elements will be to deal with the significant stormwater and drainage issues and that must happen before the Preliminary Plan phase.

Mr. Delisio noted the applicant claims to have listened to concerns but their response is to add more units so it does not seem like much of a compromise. Mr. Hall appreciated some of the efforts the applicant made in the revisions but as Mr. Marolda mentioned the increase in lot size and the number of planned units goes against the neighbors’ suggestions. Ms. Harkin understood the need for housing and is happy to see changes to the landscaping, however she noted that it does not seem that the neighbors are satisfied with the massing and density, and it does not seem like the planned amenities are sufficient for future residents. Mr. Constantine said he would be more than willing to accept a height waiver if it would improve the appearance of the building. Mr. Hopkins said one of the reasons he asked about floor-to-floor height is because when you look at elevations when you do work on an existing building there needs to be some common thread.

Mr. Hall made a motion to close the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Ms. Letendre volunteered some possible conditions of approval. She must get the RIHPHC opinion and they will need ARB involvement in the application again. Any revisions to the plan will need to come back at Preliminary Plan. She will incorporate into the discussion a height variance if it were to improve the appearance of the building. The current planned height is 35 feet but the previous design was 38 feet. Ms. Letendre noted that more outdoor amenities should be explored. In the process of stormwater, the applicant should explore removing more impervious surface as a possible condition. Atty. Levesque reminded the Board that one of the findings they need to make is if a plan is consistent with the local needs as identified in the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and the community’s affordable housing plan.

Mr. Hall felt that the new application did not address the density issue and he is not satisfied that he has enough information to vote favorably. There was discussion about a possible extension of a decision to the April 18 Planning Board meeting to deliberate further at the March 21 meeting. The Board called a recess at 9:33 p.m. recess. Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 9:40 p.m.

The Board discussed that a density bonus of 66 percent is allowed and the applicant has a requested bonus of 185 percent. The Board deliberated what would be an acceptable range for a density bonus. Mr. Constantine recommended that if the new building were two stories instead of three and they decreased it by 9 units that lowers the density by 20 percent. The density would then be 150 percent and that could allow for a more attractive design and less impervious surface. Atty. Levesque advised that the Board could condition the Master Plan based on a range 120-150 percent density based on engineering, traffic, aesthetics and also conditional on what proforma the applicant may present. Mr. O’Neil clarified that the Board would approve a project within that range. Atty. Letendre asked for a range of units for the applicant to work with. Atty. Nardone confirmed that the applicant agrees to an extension of an application decision on March 21. Mr. Constantine noted a unit range would need to be 31 to 39 units to reflect a 120-150 density. Progress of Westerly in affordable housing achievement on record last meeting.

Mr. Constantine made a motion to continue deliberations about the application and render a decision at the March 21 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

There was no new business.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1. Town of Westerly 2023 Hazard Mitigation & Flood Management Plan (HM&FMP) – Public Review Period (February 7-27) – Ms. Letendre said this is on the Town’s Web site and the Board is asked to comment or respond if they would like. She said there is no special meeting in March. She said she is working with Town Council to provide them with priorities. Mr. Hopkins will present the Planning Board’s annual report next Monday night.

 

2.       Development Project Status Report (updated 2/1/2023)

 

3.       Administrative Actions

 

·         Flynn Residence Addition Final Plan Approval (48-52 Bay Street | AP 179, Lot 102)

 

·         Starbucks Final Plan Approval (156-1 Granite Street | AP 77, Lot 395)

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

1. Report on proposed legislation – Atty. Levesque said there have been additional developments since the minor ones he was going to report so he will continue his report to the next meeting. Mr. Hopkins asked if it was appropriate to include part of this in the Town Council presentation as it may affect Planning work. Ms. Letendre said by the next meeting they will have a better idea of legislation to be presented.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING

 

1. March 21, 2023 Regular Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Members of the Planning Board are asked to notify the Administrative Officer if they will not be present at the next regular meeting. The following topics are anticipated to be discussed (pending completeness review):

 

·         Weekapaug Golf Club Cold Storage Facility DPR (265 Shore Road | AP 131, Lot 23A)

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Ms. Harkin made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker

 

 

Approved by vote of the Board on March 21, 2023